City Council - Regular Meeting

Memorandum from Rudy Marino, Historic Preservation Commission Secretary regarding the proposed landmark designation of 2520 North Main Street referred to code and regulations. All of these are being referred to codes and regulations. Traffic Commission's agenda for the meeting to be held on September 9th, 2026 and minutes from that meeting for consideration at the Code and Regulations Committee meeting on September 28th, 2026. Zoning Board of Appeals agenda for the meeting to be held on September 15th, 2026, and the minutes from that meeting for consideration at the Code and Regulations Commit

These matters will be referred to the Finance and Personnel Committee. Number one is a memorandum from Joshua Berluse regarding the proposed sale of city-owned property at 710 North Church Street pursuant to the Mode of Own program. Number two is a memorandum from Owen Carter regarding the acceptance of an IACAA DHS employment barrier reduction fund award. Number three is a memorandum from Carol Jorowski regarding the acceptance of the Bureau of Justice Assistance Fiscal Year 2025 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice JAG Award. Number four is a memorandum from Diane Hernandez regarding the approval o

Thank you. Yeah, I have some questions on item two. I don't recall that we've been given, and maybe we have, The 70% of the hotel and motel tax that currently goes to Go Rockford, what is that equal in dollars? And how much more in dollars would Go Rockford be receiving at 75%?

And if we approve this tonight, does that go into effect immediately? When is the effective date?

So the beginning of next month. The exemption for Go Rockford to not be bound by Legend's global labor agreement with the International Alliance of Theatrical and Stage Employees. Can somebody explain what sort of the rationale is for that? I assume that. It has to do with size of events. But I would also assume that Go Rockford might be using the new stage there and essentially, even though an event may be community or regional, may still be Taking my time up. I'm sorry. Apologies. I can continue. Thank you, Madam Mayor. In other words, if it's not sized, why would, I mean, I can understand l

For what and how does it how is it invoked in?

It's good to hear. Thank you Is there any I know there's language in the proposal about The requirements for Legends Global can submit up to 10 annual events yearly, and there's language about an agreement that will be worked out with Go Rockford, but I'm curious as to why we're not talking about any sort of required level of programming that we would be expecting in return for the additional $140,000 annually. Is that something that would still be worked out?

So in the agreement that would eventually be signed, we could have some court sort of required volume of programming if we want to and can figure out how to describe that, articulate that?

Is it, I can't think of another time where we have, I'm sure there probably is one, but where we have approved funding. So if we were to approve this tonight, we're approving funding that would start the beginning of next month. But then the language that the city of Rockford and Go Rockford will develop a formal agreement outlining Go Rockford's responsibilities, why would that come in the future after we've already approved the funding? Why is that not coming now?

I know it was stated at committee that Legends Global or Rave isn't interested in this smaller scale, non-ticketed programming, but I'm a little concerned about all the fingers in the pie and if Davis Park is going to be successful. Who's ultimately responsible? I think the answer is we are since we own it, but Is it out of the question to make this simpler and have BMO, Rave, Legends solely responsible for all of the programming with expectations that it's not just ticketed events? and not have the additional component of Go Rockford involved with a increase in its take of the hotel motel tax

Also, this has been covered before, I think, too, but for many years, the park district was part of the equation. The park district was maintaining the park. The park district didn't want to continue to do that. Where are we with how the park is going to be maintained? Are we doing that on an ongoing basis and contracting that out? How is that working?

And our last meeting approved the public hearings of the Tourism Improvement District. Is that public hearing date set yet? And if so, when is it?

more than twice, at least twice as long as probably any of our labor agreements ever were. It is more than twice as long as the extensions we gave to the recently to the Arts Council and the Chamber of Commerce to go from one to three years, longer than the term of a US Senator. I'm just wondering what was the rationale for needing to renew it two years before it actually expires and renewing it for that long, because I assume we could approve the funding increase as an amendment to the existing contract without extending the contract, correct?

Thank you. I've got some other thoughts, so I'm going to hold them for now. Thank you for the additional information.

Mayor I appreciate the questions from the 14th Ward alderman as a member of the rave board representing City Council along with the Tenth Ward alderman we have put in obviously as many people know quite a bit of money into Davis Park So we would like to activate it to the extent. It should be Rave has expertise individuals such as legends global that work for legends global and obviously sit as members of the raid board they have expertise in things you know concerts comedians they have the connections with the promoters on a national scale Where Go Rockford comes in to fill a gap is as we try

Thank you so much for allowing me to speak. So in my perfect world, I would like to see the Rave Board and Legends be the ones taking care of Davis Park as it is in the contract that we have. I know it's very explicit where things are changed, but that's what I would like to see in my perfect world. But I guess my question is, the additional 5%, let's say we did not do this, and we were in my perfect world, and Rave was taking care of Davis Park, and we didn't need Go Rockford to do this. Where would the 5% go? How would that be spent?

OK. And could that be used to pay down debt?

Could it be used to cover the maintenance costs at Davis Park?

And prior to the change, was it the park district? Were we paying the park district out of the redevelopment fund in order to do the maintenance? So the park district paid for it? Correct. So this would be a new cost added to the budget? Yes, it is. And do we have an estimate of what that cost is? Wow, okay. That is a number that is new to me. Okay, thank you so much. I don't have any more questions.

Thank you, Your Honor. I also wanted to dovetail on some very good comments from my fellow aldermen. I'm troubled by this contract. I think it's way too long. And I think if Davis Park is going to come online, I think a fair amount of time, maybe two years, to see what they can do, if they can accomplish that. And I think the contract is incomplete. There's got to be some reasonable expectation or goal that they have to achieve in programming Davis Park. I think the contract's incomplete. And it's also too long. The other is, do we ever have a contract with anybody that's percent-based?

Yeah. Who do we contract with on a percent basis? Anybody? Because I don't recall. So I'm wondering historically why this is a percent-based contract. It's not a finite number. So that troubles me.

Yeah. But there has to be, in my opinion, there has to be some kind of ceiling. And the other element of this that's another moving part in the contract is Go Rockford is now contracting with the hotels regionally to promote activities that fill the hotel rooms. Every time we get a quarterly report, the quarterly report alludes to Go Rockford's activities to promote filling hotel rooms. So they're getting paid twice now for the same thing. So I don't understand why the increase. They're going to get funding, additional funding probably, to fill the hotel rooms, which offsets their ability to p

If we send it back to committee, does It goes back on the agenda, but there's no requirement that it advance to council in two weeks from committee, because otherwise we could just lay it over for two weeks. I mean, are we sending it back? Is sending it back to committee essentially laying it over indefinitely?

And if we do it this way, when it returns to council, this does not take away the ability to lay it over on the two aldermen.

Yeah, I mean I agree. I don't think the cakes really baked on this yet and and I and it's not because Davis Park doesn't need to succeed. We've got a huge investment there and it does needs to succeed, but I think that you know, I just think that this Eight years is extraordinary. I don't you know, I I don't know how much the general public thought is going to give to it, but I think the chattering class in Rockford views this as our former mayor trying to feather the nest of Go Rockford on his way out the door, even though he's already gone. And I just don't think we should... rush this throu

Thank you, Mayor. I think our special events department, as good as they are, are... correct me if I'm wrong more probably in the permitting process than the promotion process so as much as I enjoy everyone in special events department they do a great job I'm not sure about if we want to add promote promoting events to their their work process but again I think there's some valid points if I could ask Administrator Cagnoni. I don't have it in front of me. I know in the rave packet we had responsibilities of rave responsibilities that would be On go Rockford and also the city's responsibilities

And it addressed gated. I'm sorry for interrupting. It addressed things such as gated events and ticketed events. And so I guess when we, and I have no issue with aldermen asking more details. it's just i just want to make sure that there was some things that were pointed out that may address those questions in particular and i wouldn't be opposed to additional questions beyond that so

ALAN TUNBERG JR.: No. I mean, there has been something put out you know, maybe there are additional questions beyond what has been put out there already amongst the responsibilities of the three entities. So if that's the case and individuals have further questions or want to address things that are not in that document, existing document, then that's fine. So thank you.

Thank you. So I think the advantage of the motion to send it back to committee versus laying it over, if we lay it over for two weeks, what typically happens is individual aldermen talk with go Rockford and or city staff. And then we come back and we vote. But we're all going out getting information individually. And it might not all be that all of us aren't then privy to unless we share it when we come back to council. But by sending it back to committee, it allows for more discussion. around the horseshoe with everybody hearing the same things. And I think that's why this is preferable to a

Sorry, I was talking with the minister, or he was talking. I'm sorry, the vote, I apologize, I was talking to the city administrator.

Okay, thank you. Committee recommends approval of plot number two of Hopkins subdivision for the property located at 1522 Rose Avenue. Number two, committee recommends approval of plat number five of Hickory Crest subdivision for the property located at 4750 Pepper Drive. Number three, committee recommends approval of the final plat of Culver's 11th Street subdivision for the property located at 3218 11th street number four committee recommends approval of the annexation of 2010 new milford road new milford excuse me new milford school road the owner of the subject property has requested conne

Thank you. Number one, the committee recommends the approval of vouchers in the amount of $9,707,390.16 as approved at the finance and personnel committee meeting held on August 24, 2026. And number two, the committee recommends approval for the addition of city-owned property located at 638 Whitman Street to the city's MoToOwn program. The property will be part of the MoToOwn agreement between the city

Thank you so much. I just wanted to really quick let everyone know that I'll be having a town hall meeting Wednesday, September 30th. It'll be at 700 West Riverside that for many of you who know is Cliff Breakers or Riverview Inn and Suites is the location from 5 30 until 7 30. and so um this is definitely geared towards the 12th ward but anyone is invited to attend so i just wanted to let everyone know that thank you so much

I would like to thank the Labor Day parade committee yesterday. They put on a great parade. There was a lot of candy had by all. And it was a lot of fun to see students and everybody else that you don't normally get to see. But I do appreciate what the committee does and how much work and effort it goes into putting it on. But it was a great event. Thank you.

Alderman Toonberg Thank You mayor I had the honor to ride in the annual Jamie Cox Memorial Ride a couple Saturdays ago very well attended I want to thank you Rockford Police Department the Winnebago County Sheriff's Department and the Ogle County Sheriff's Department for helping at intersections and the escorting so I It was a well-attended event, like I said, and for a good cause. Also, hats off to our community policing unit for doing a successful neighborhood event with over 100 kids at Kenrock Community Center in the third ward. So it was a great time, and the chief was there, and plenty o

Thank you. I'll be brief. I'm not feeling that well tonight. But I will be making a motion as I sent correspondence to each of you. Over the last few weeks, we've had much discussion about supporting small businesses through this Spaces to Places program. And just want to say thank you to city staff for all of the back and forth on what we could do to adjust and take what us as city council members have shared over the last few weeks and not just say no and just wipe this completely away but to come back and reduce the amount just to launch a pilot program rather than a two-year program i'd ho

Oh. But I'm sure the first board alderman wanted to hear me speak so the uh i yeah i would uh i would back this amendment from the 300 down to 150. i'm still not absolutely sold on the program itself i think there still is plenty of questions and you know how far should municipal government get involved in this as well possibly with businesses that maybe aren't absolutely set up for success But with that being said, if it does pass tonight, that I am more comfortable with the $150,000 starting out with than the $300,000. One of my questions is that how long are we going to continue this progra

Okay. Because, yes, I absolutely wouldn't want this program to go on indefinitely. So, yeah, I would like confirmation on how long we are going to have this program for.

So we'd evaluate after one year the success of the program. And then if we want to continue with this program being funded the way it is as well, then we would come to vote on this program again in one year, correct?

OK. I will possibly add additional comments after the motion.

Third ward alderman's question and the answer now, now I'm confused about the reason for the amendment. If we're going to be approving the program for one year, my understanding was that this amendment would be to reduce funding in the second year of the program. But we're not approving a second year of the program?

OK. My understanding of this before the amendment was submitted was that it was $300,000 in the first year and $300,000 in the second year. It's $300,000 for one program year that straddles two fiscal years?

For 300,000 correct or is it the 150 150 I know it's been two weeks. So So the you know, I still have issues like I mentioned that I'm comfortable that it went from three down to 150 in the sense that if this does pass I would rather have 150 put in Again, I still have some issues that know we did I have talked with various parties on this the city along with outside parties that do have business interests and expertise in this matter as well You know, I do have a tough time in just handing a business over the course of a year and then what happens afterwards in year two or year three. And, yo

on all the men frost thank you i i understand the promise behind this was trying to really try to fill in some of the plighted and vacant vacant storefronts and retail spots we have amongst a number of different business quarters but having having a one-year pilot program and then i'm going to reassess in the year well i mean i i i bet you i can tell you how it's going to go uh... if if like i said before If a business plan and a new business can't afford a security deposit to get into a spot, I'm going to go out on a limb and say they're probably not going to succeed. And I just don't think p

I recall a different one. This was asked about before with the casino fund on another issue. I recall a much smaller number being left in the casino fund.

Yeah, I just wanted to... give kind of a different example. I know one example won't change people's minds or deter anything. And nothing's etched in stone. But one example in my area that I think could be useful is there's an individual that is looking to begin or continue on with the pre-apprenticeship program. They're currently in a smaller space looking to expand that space. And so they're looking in an area in my ward to do an expansion. And I do believe that this Spaces to Places program would be very beneficial to them. They're currently paying rent in another location outside of the ci

Thank you, Mayor. So Alderwoman Torino made a point about supporting the resolution, the amendment rather, even if you're not supporting the program overall. And I think if we're going to approve the program, I think we're making it's a mistake to reduce the amount. Because I think you've got to beg the question then, is the program going to be as Alderman Frost pointed out, with the viability of the businesses that would be receiving the money. I think you asked the same question about the success of a one-year pilot program funded with $150,000. Is that likely to be deemed a success after th

Writing down a few notes here. Trying to get my words together. I think when you look at supporting small businesses, it's necessary in order to redevelop and strengthen our community. I get the comments about the funding. We just voted to reduce that amount. I think now I'm hearing the viability of the program, it being a pilot now for one year. I say we let staff do what they do best every single day. I mean, I'm not a full-time alderman. which I was, so I can continue to help city staff implement the programs that we pass at city council into my ward and throughout our community. But I woul

Thank you. And just talking about the qualifying zones, it was mentioned in some of the discussion today. I just want to come out publicly. I think I've said it before on this same topic in debate over the last few weeks. The majority of my ward does not qualify for this program. But I know that this program is important for our whole community. But then taking a step further and expanding the zone for our businesses and bringing together the businesses within the 13th Ward, that's what I'm doing, so that eventually we can qualify for this program. And so I'd be voting for this. And should thi

So, thank you Thank you alderman Beach Thank You So small businesses very difficult time to surviving they're luckily if they get past the second year and And it seems like we like to do things to help people succeed, not to set them up for failure. And when I look at this program, as well-intended as it seems to be, I don't see anything here to help strengthen the entrepreneur, to give them the skills they need to be successful when we know by looking at national statistics that maybe as many as 50% of the businesses are going to be out of business in the first five years, and perhaps 20% are

Thank you, Mayor. I have a different perspective on the previous comments. Just want to highlight a few different programs or initiatives that actually support our entrepreneurs in small businesses, one being Think Big, RLDC, SBDC, Business First through the city of Rockford. I mean, the partners within this program that will be participating. Also, for the River District specific, Go Rockford has been helping grow that from a marketing perspective, which has brought in more customers in the downtown area and activating that space more through events and more. But, yeah, I'll stop right there.

All right. Are we voting on the space of the place ?

As an amendment. I'm sorry, I changed it. I went to a no.

I'm sorry. The amendment from 150 to 3. That already passed. So this is the amendment for the items to go through.

Aye. No on item 1, aye on item 2. No on 1, aye on 2.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Thanks for covering down for me. I was playing soccer coach earlier. Code and Regulation Committee, two items. Item number one, committee recommends approval of the Boylan Homecoming Parade. This event is scheduled for Sunday, September 20th. The event will be from 3 to 5 p.m. Parade route will be the following, St. Francis Drive from Krampus Hills Boulevard to Boylan High School entrance on Muldoon Drive. Item number two, resolution for settlement of Cornelius Williams versus City of Rockford in the amount of $25,000. And rule number nine would need to be suspended for this. Thank you.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye

Number one, the committee recommends approval award a bid for traffic, signal, and street lighting electrical services to Helm Electric and William Charles in an estimated annual amount of $50,000. It's a one-year contract with four possible one-year extension options. Annual price adjustments for CPI will be considered a contract renewal only. And the funding source is the traffic section operating budget. Number two, the committee recommends approval of joint purchase contract for network cloud storage of CDW government. The contract is for three years. The funding source is the information

Thank you a number nine do do we know I assume we know what the Project admit projected increment is for the improvements at the Arts Council in other words, what would be what is going to be the anticipated reimbursement and

One year, OK. And is that created essentially by the abatement work that's being done through the EPA grant? What's increasing the value of the property?

Status-wise with this project. I think it was in Over a year ago. There was a news conference in front of the armory and at that time there was targeted Clean update by the end of this year and that there would be a capital stack determined by January of next year for what was estimated as a $45 million project? Is that still the schedule they're running on, or where are we with that?

And their development partners, is that still, it's my understanding that Gorman is no longer involved. Is Urban Equity Properties still a development partner?

So I was wondering if we couldn't, in our next strategic planning session, which I think is at the end of November, if it wouldn't be smart for us to bring in a number of developers of projects that we are invested in or contemplating being invested in to update us on the status of those. This project included, but also Jay Jeffers with Barbara Coleman. Urban Equities with the News Tower, Joseph James with the Times Theater, the Emerson Development with the Watch Factory, I believe it's now platform group with the Avon Street project. If we couldn't either have them come before planning and de

We have nine items before us. Item number one, an ordinance approving the annexation of 2010 new Milford School Road. Item number two, an ordinance approving the special use permit for a planned unit development consisting of an expansion of existing automotive truck vehicle inspection vehicle truck repair shop in an I-1 light industrial zoning district at 2318, 2320, 2326 Star Street, 2305 Kishwaukee Street. Item number three, an ordinance approving a special use permit for automobile repair and maintenance facility in a C2 limited commercial zoning district at 2619 Charles Street. Item numbe

The number one is an ordinance approving the addition of city-owned property located at 638 Whitman Street to the city's motor-owned program. The property will be part of a motor-owned agreement between the city of Rockford and the adjacent property owner, Jessica Cortina, as I place this in front of you to vote.

I would make a motion to convene in closed session to discuss pending litigation matters.

Resolution for settlement of Cornelius Williams versus City of Rockford, case number 24CB5315 in the amount of $25,000, and we'd have to suspend rule nine.

Is that just a motion to suspend Rule 9, though? Oh, yeah. We didn't vote on it. That was just to suspend Rule 9.